ArticleJournal of eye movement research2025
Head and Eye Movements During Pedestrian Crossing in Patients with Visual Impairment: A Virtual Reality Eye Tracking Study.
Article in Journal of eye movement research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Effects of Cognitive, Simulator, and Real-World Training on Novice Driver Gaze Behaviour: A Pre-Post Study.Journal of eye movement research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Real-world navigation depends on coordinated head-eye behaviour that standard tests of visual function miss. We investigated how visual impairment affects traffic navigation, whether behaviour differs by visual impairment type, and whether this functional grouping better explains performance than WHO categorisation. Using a virtual reality (VR) headset with integrated head and eye tracking, we evaluated detection of moving cars and safe road-crossing opportunities in 40 patients with central, peripheral, or combined visual impairment and 19 controls. Only two patients with a combination of very low visual acuity and severely constricted visual fields failed both visual tasks. Overall, patients identified safe-crossing intervals 1.3-1.5 s later than controls (
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.